Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 21 March 23 >

March 22 edit

Template:Hot Space tracks edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant – per {{Extra track listing}}, "track listings should not be added to infoboxes if there is a navigation template or navbox at the bottom of the article which already lists the songs", which is already the case, as the articles already include the {{Queen songs}} navbox. Only six of the album's eleven tracks have articles anyway, the other five simply redirect back to the parent album article. Richard3120 (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Note that the template creator has removed all transclusions of the template. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:News of the World tracks edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant – per {{Extra track listing}}, "track listings should not be added to infoboxes if there is a navigation template or navbox at the bottom of the article which already lists the songs", which is already the case, as the articles already include the {{Queen songs}} navbox. Only five of the album's eleven tracks have articles anyway, the other six simply redirect back to the parent album article. Richard3120 (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Note that the template creator has removed all transclusions of the template. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:A Night at the Opera tracks edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant – per {{Extra track listing}}, "track listings should not be added to infoboxes if there is a navigation template or navbox at the bottom of the article which already lists the songs", which is already the case, as the articles already include the {{Queen songs}} navbox. Richard3120 (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Note that the template creator has removed all transclusions of the template. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:4TeamBracket-with 3rd-NoSeeds edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by {{4TeamBracket|seeds=no|...}} (third appears automatically when used via Module:Team bracket) Frietjes (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I guess no one's complained, so delete. Nigej (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:4TeamBracket-WPS-NoSeeds edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by 4TeamBracket-WPS|seeds=no Frietjes (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I guess no one's complained, so delete. Nigej (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Baltimore Gay Street station services edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only page that used this template Baltimore Gay Street station was draftified and then deleted. This should never have been a template, it is specific information that was only of use on that one article and should have been page content. It is also the wrong content, being unsourced, inaccurate and completely inconsistent with how other railroad station articles present this information. Laplorfill (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no need to split from article even if there were an article to split it from. Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Pakistan–Russia relations edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Izno (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barely used in most of the articles listed in the template. Much of it contains irrelevant articles and links to categories. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/merge with Template:Pakistan–Soviet Union relations. Many of the articles in the templates overlap, and for articles like Russians in Pakistan and vice versa, the relevance for the template is still there. Shushugah (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yeah except for articles like Russians in Pakistan don't have much to do with their relations. Pages like these are generally categorized under a subcategory of the broader relations category. The same issue lies with the Soviet Union template as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete: Obvious on what needs to be done. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indented your comment. Please avoid !voting twice in the future. --Izno (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and then use on articles. I agree with User:Shushugah that the navbox is still relevant in the Pakistan-SU context. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And yet there are only ten articles listed under the Pakistan-Russia relations category. Most of what's listed in the template have nothing to do with their relationship. It links irrelevant topics. We can't have all countries with their respective bilateral relations created. It's only for countries with the most important like India and Pakistan for instance. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Pakistan–Soviet Union relations edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Pakistan–Russia relations. Izno (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same as the Pakistan–Russia relations template below. Barely used in most of the articles listed in the template. Much of it contains irrelevant articles and links to categories. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: This template is linked in only three main articles and needs cleanup Shushugah (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only cleanup would be deletion. It's just useless to have around. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious on what needs to be done. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and then use on articles. I agree with User:Shushugah that the navbox is still relevant in the Pakistan-SU context. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And yet there are only a few articles listed under the relations category of exact importance. Most of what's listed in the template have nothing to do with their relationship. It links irrelevant topics. We can't have all countries with their respective bilateral relations created. It's only for countries with the most important like India and Pakistan for instance. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Pokémon color and related edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to have a Template just for a single colour. Furthermore, these templates were predominantly/only used to add colours to video infoboxes, which is WP:OR, and discouraged per MOS:INFOBOX and unanimous editor consensus here. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 05:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Even if we wanted to use these colors for some valid reason couldn't we just use the hex code? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete templates for such a simple thing don't have much utility, and as mentioned only encourage non-standard usage. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_22&oldid=1091625000"